Talk:Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act

ekh 02:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disappointed office seeker
this is unfair to Charles Guiteau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.128.211 (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you expect. He was a deranged office seeker who killed a US President. :) Nonamer98 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied from government webpage
Looks like the main text of this article was taken from

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/28.htm


 * Yes, it does. In the main page, it shows copyright information, but I'm not sure if it has to do with the particular article used in the main text, or not.--ViolinGirl 15:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It's wikified, isn't it?
Can't the "This article needs to be wikified" be removed. I'm new so I'm not sure. -Barry- 08:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not yet. The article needs to be split into sections in order to be wikified. It also needs more in-depth information. Nonamer98 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed comment
Removed unnecessary comment: (a claim used by Guiteau himself in Sondheim and Weidman's Assassins). What does that have to do with the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act?

American Civil Service
Should American Civil Service redirect to this page? It currently does yet this is hardly an encyclopedia entry for the American Civil Service. --Apolloourson 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Merit System
Should the Merit System page link to this page? The topics are very interrelated and the merit system page only has about three sentences? Also, one other thing to consider is that the Pendleton Act also gave the option for people to enter into government work through lateral entry rather than starting on the bottom tier of government work. (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jlpeters/html/chapter_6.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smile234 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The significance of the "Luévano v. Campbell" case.
The article currently says: "As a result of the court case Luévano v. Campbell, most federal government employees are no longer hired by means of competitive examinations." I don't believe this is true. That case (see the link) was not about, and did not void, the use of "competitive examinations" generally, but about a particular exam, which was then replaced. Perhaps someone would clarify that? 50.248.212.110 (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)